# arXiv cs.AI: Addition by Subtraction: Toward Mitigating Fragile Safety Alignment in Large Language Models [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-addition-by-subtraction-toward-mitigating-fragile-3d7af2f4) Hamid Dashtbani and Alexandra Dmitrienko propose Addition by Subtraction, a way to make safety alignment less dependent on a small set of model components. They describe a weakness in which removing safety-critical neurons or ablating a refusal direction can undermine aligned behavior. Their method gradually removes identified safety-critical neurons during finetuning, then uses preference optimization to re-establish safety-aligned behavior through other parts of the model. The authors report that models trained this way resist pruning-based attacks and also improve against refusal-direction ablation and a broad range of black-box jailbreak attacks. They further report improved truthfulness while largely preserving general capabilities. In experiments across four models from three vendors, attack success rates fell by up to 90% for some attacks. Escape Meridian interpretation: the central idea is to rebuild safety behavior after removing components it might otherwise rely on, rather than leave that dependence untouched. The abstract presents this as an initial step and reports experimental results; it does not establish how well the approach transfers beyond the reported evaluations or how its tradeoffs vary across models and attacks. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 4, 2026 (2026-11-04). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T07:17:41.956Z. First observed: 2026-11-05T05:00:27.341Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T07:09:15.126Z. - [Addition by Subtraction: Toward Mitigating Fragile Safety Alignment in Large Language Models](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Limits The supplied arXiv page provides the abstract, not detailed attack setups, evaluation measures, or results by model; the reported robustness and attack-success reductions cannot be assessed in greater detail from this evidence alone. The abstract describes the work as taking “the first steps” toward strengthening safety alignment, and does not establish performance beyond the evaluations it reports. ## Open question What attack setups and evaluation details underlie the reported reductions in attack success rates? ## Source-stated The authors identify sparse safety alignment as a weakness: removing safety-critical neurons or ablating a refusal direction can undermine aligned behavior. > pruning a small number of safety-critical neurons or ablating a single refusal direction can substantially undermine aligned behavior - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source-stated Addition by Subtraction removes identified safety-critical neurons during finetuning and uses preference optimization to re-establish safety-aligned behavior through other parts of the model. > gradually removes identified safety-critical neurons during finetuning and uses preference optimization to re-establish safety-aligned behavior through other parts of the model - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source-stated The authors report improved robustness against pruning-based attacks, refusal-direction ablation, and a broad range of black-box jailbreak attacks. > improves robustness against other sparsity-based interventions, including refusal-direction ablation, as well as a broad range of black-box jailbreak attacks - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source-stated The authors report improved truthfulness while largely preserving general capabilities. > also exhibit improved truthfulness while largely preserving general capabilities - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source-stated In experiments across four models from three vendors, attack success rates fell by up to 90% for some attacks. > across four models from three vendors demonstrate consistent improvements in safety robustness, reducing attack success rates by up to 90% for some attacks. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Escape Meridian interpretation The proposed method’s central idea is to rebuild safety behavior after removing components it might otherwise rely on. > uses preference optimization to re-establish safety-aligned behavior through other parts of the model - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source and contributor context Dashtbani, Hamid, Dmitrienko, Alexandra · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Large language model A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model) ## Fine-tuning Further training of an existing model to adapt it to a particular task or use. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#fine-tuning) ## Jailbreak A prompt written to trick an AI system into ignoring its safety rules. - [Definition reference](https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02483) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: c43f9020-934a-4618-828e-a563db8a7f9c. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T07:17:41.956Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 14ea36792cad8cf9b1c339fa1ba6a68b4f5069b68ffeea13cb05b860c37919dc. Source text hash: bdcab4dd0cb00071c469c5c565b2d05a02aa7c3216b1d11896f68786ce1cfcde. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-09T07:17:41.956Z Hamid Dashtbani and Alexandra Dmitrienko propose Addition by Subtraction, a way to make safety alignment less dependent on a small set of model components. They describe a weakness in which removing safety-critical neurons or ablating a refusal direction can undermine aligned behavior. Their method gradually removes identified safety-critical neurons during finetuning, then uses preference optimization to re-establish safety-aligned behavior through other parts of the model. The authors report that models trained this way resist pruning-based attacks and also improve against refusal-direction ablation and a broad range of black-box jailbreak attacks. They further report improved truthfulness while largely preserving general capabilities. In experiments across four models from three vendors, attack success rates fell by up to 90% for some attacks. Escape Meridian interpretation: the central idea is to rebuild safety behavior after removing components it might otherwise rely on, rather than leave that dependence untouched. The abstract presents this as an initial step and reports experimental results; it does not establish how well the approach transfers beyond the reported evaluations or how its tradeoffs vary across models and attacks. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 4, 2026 (2026-11-04). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T07:17:41.956Z. First observed: 2026-11-05T05:00:27.341Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T07:09:15.126Z. - [Addition by Subtraction: Toward Mitigating Fragile Safety Alignment in Large Language Models](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Limits The supplied arXiv page provides the abstract, not detailed attack setups, evaluation measures, or results by model; the reported robustness and attack-success reductions cannot be assessed in greater detail from this evidence alone. The abstract describes the work as taking “the first steps” toward strengthening safety alignment, and does not establish performance beyond the evaluations it reports. ## Open question What attack setups and evaluation details underlie the reported reductions in attack success rates? ## Source-stated The authors identify sparse safety alignment as a weakness: removing safety-critical neurons or ablating a refusal direction can undermine aligned behavior. > pruning a small number of safety-critical neurons or ablating a single refusal direction can substantially undermine aligned behavior - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source-stated Addition by Subtraction removes identified safety-critical neurons during finetuning and uses preference optimization to re-establish safety-aligned behavior through other parts of the model. > gradually removes identified safety-critical neurons during finetuning and uses preference optimization to re-establish safety-aligned behavior through other parts of the model - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source-stated The authors report improved robustness against pruning-based attacks, refusal-direction ablation, and a broad range of black-box jailbreak attacks. > improves robustness against other sparsity-based interventions, including refusal-direction ablation, as well as a broad range of black-box jailbreak attacks - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source-stated The authors report improved truthfulness while largely preserving general capabilities. > also exhibit improved truthfulness while largely preserving general capabilities - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source-stated In experiments across four models from three vendors, attack success rates fell by up to 90% for some attacks. > across four models from three vendors demonstrate consistent improvements in safety robustness, reducing attack success rates by up to 90% for some attacks. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Escape Meridian interpretation The proposed method’s central idea is to rebuild safety behavior after removing components it might otherwise rely on. > uses preference optimization to re-establish safety-aligned behavior through other parts of the model - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06553) ## Source and contributor context Dashtbani, Hamid, Dmitrienko, Alexandra · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Large language model A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model) ## Fine-tuning Further training of an existing model to adapt it to a particular task or use. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#fine-tuning) ## Jailbreak A prompt written to trick an AI system into ignoring its safety rules. - [Definition reference](https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02483) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: c43f9020-934a-4618-828e-a563db8a7f9c. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T07:17:41.956Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 14ea36792cad8cf9b1c339fa1ba6a68b4f5069b68ffeea13cb05b860c37919dc. Source text hash: bdcab4dd0cb00071c469c5c565b2d05a02aa7c3216b1d11896f68786ce1cfcde. ### uncertain — 2026-11-09T07:17:41.956Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: c43f9020-934a-4618-828e-a563db8a7f9c attribution — pass: The draft correctly credits Hamid Dashtbani and Alexandra Dmitrienko and keeps the results framed as what the authors report. The Escape Meridian interpretation is clearly labeled and separated from the source's claims. > Authors:Hamid Dashtbani, Alexandra Dmitrienko summary — uncertain: The draft is faithful and keeps the sparsity point ('a small set of model components'). A general reader still meets central jargon with no plain explanation in the reading: safety alignment, safety-critical neurons, pruning, ablating a refusal direction, preference optimization, and black-box jailbreak attacks. These terms carry the whole argument, so they need term-library tooltips. Where a term is missing from the library, add it. The draft should keep these terms exactly rather than paraphrase them. The title only repeats the source title, which is acceptable. The question is a fair open issue. > pruning a small number of safety-critical neurons or ablating a single refusal direction can substantially undermine aligned behavior date — pass: The originalPublished date, 2026-11-04, matches the arXiv v1 submission date. The feed date of 2026-11-05 is correctly not used. > \[Submitted on 4 Nov 2026\] support — pass: Each claim matches the abstract: the method, robustness to pruning, refusal-direction ablation and black-box jailbreaks, improved truthfulness, and the reduction of up to 90% for some attacks across four models from three vendors. The interpretation is labeled and conditional. The limitations correctly note the 'first steps' framing and that the evidence is abstract-only. The draft adds no unsupported benefits or costs. > reducing attack success rates by up to 90% for some attacks media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the arXiv abstract page. This is the original source. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/3d7af2f47fe4a0fc8382fefff45bef1dcea6467b5705c4b10a01e9727d75023e/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-addition-by-subtraction-toward-mitigating-fragile-3d7af2f4.json)